By: jon altman

jon altman — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It is terrific that Titjikala and other communities unfairly deprived of CDEP as part of the NT ‘National Emergency” Intervention are seeing the scheme’s reinstatement. Now they can get back to the difficult business of creating jobs and enterprises that so many have done extremely well. Harry is corrrect that the cost shifting by Commonwealth and NT governments onto CDEP has been a problem not of CDEP but rather of unconscionable state accountability to poor Australian citizens living in remote and difficult circumstances. What concerns me is that the commitment by the Rudd government to reinstate CDEP is limited to 12 months which again introduces a degree of uncertainty that could undermine proper business planning and associated investment. It is time that the government looked at the evidence base when making policy pronouncements: at locations like Titjikala there should be commitment to multi-year funding of CDEP so that success can be enthusiastically rewarded and replicated.

By: Vicki LG

Vicki LG — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

While it may be better than nothing - there are still some concerning aspects of CDEP provision in communities. For example, some of the jobs that people do under CDEP are worth more than they are paid - a lack of service provision is made up by employing people at less than the dole (tax is taken out) in communities where the necessities like food cost so much more. This means that the ‘real’ jobs may never happen ie there is no need to create them as they are done through CDEP already. Many people do not get the opportunity to claim their tax as they are illiterate so it has gone back into government revenue over years - how much of this “Aboriginal money’ is there? Jobs such as traditional healing, counselling, family support services, cultural education are not recognised as ‘real’ jobs and are not eligible for CDEP.

Comments on: CDEP: “Welcome back,” says one remote community

By: jon altman

By: Vicki LG